MSI Raider A18 HX A9WJG-091TR RAM and SSD Incompatibility Issues - Is a BIOS Update Available?

joao.sousa.domingo158102d7 said:
hmm might not be 100% stable.. but if its not OC'ed anywhere don;t know what it can be.. running hot?

I did fully test my system before for stability, and I never OC'ed these laptops before: https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?posts/2332855/

My runs can start like 1 or 2 seconds higher, but they all stabilise after to the best time. If any further run is worst is usually only by a second and nothing more.
Click to expand...
That's remarkable consistency, truly.

As you can see, my results are all over the place.

Probably a factor of running a really loaded operating system.

No telling when background processes try to wake up and sabotage results!
 
Fifth (and final for now) run: Intel; 10:44, AMD: 11:47.

TBH I'm surprised Intel's held up so well, in defiance of my expectations given their general state of sustained incompetence.

Let's see what the 3DMark dedicated CPU benchmarks have to say about that next?

Edit: Turns out the AMD pulled in a Windows Update while this was going on, but oh well.

We clearly don't own our machines but lease them from operating system manufacturers, at the mercy of their unstoppable updates, alleged virus scans, and the like.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't help myself from running another set, given the Windows Update interference.

Now on the Intel, the tool appeared TWICE IN A ROW with no OK/Cancel buttons.

Reality seems to be slipping away from my fingers...even as I had originally fallen in love with computing for its deterministic predictability!

#6 - Intel: 10.44, AMD: 10:58

#7 - Intel: 10:41, AMD: 10:37

#8 - Intel: 10:37, AMD: 11:02

#9 - Intel: 10:50 , AMD: 10:58

#10 - Intel: 10:41, AMD: 10:59

News: Found a local OEM selling a 14900HX paired with an RTX 5900. Whoa!

Seeing about getting me one of those so I can do some additional benchmarking and confirm my suspicions.

Also really tempted to push my production image onto the 7945HX3D and rerun the benchmark at least ten times there, just for *hits and giggles.
 
FINALLY got to 3DMark CPU testing.

Intel: Max 17,742, 16 Threads: 14,524, 8 Threads: 8,618, 4 Threads: 4,866, 2 Threads: 2,527, Single Thread: 1,281.
AMD: Max 15,127, 16 Threads: 10,607, 8 Threads: 8,213, 4 Threads: 4,744, 2 Threads: 2,428, Single Thread: 1,226.

Intel: Max 17,691, 16 Threads: 14,321, 8 Threads: 9,083, 4 Threads: 4,960, 2 Threads: 2,552, Single Thread: 1,283.
AMD: Max 15,021, 16 Threads: 10,545, 8 Threads: 8,221, 4 Threads: 4,744, 2 Threads: 2,434, Single Thread: 1,223.

Intel: Max 17,659, 16 Threads: 14,557, 8 Threads: 9,162, 4 Threads: 5,014, 2 Threads: 2,556, Single Thread: 1,287.
AMD: Max 15,116, 16 Threads: 10,559, 8 Threads: 8,237, 4 Threads: 4,735, 2 Threads: 2,427, Single Thread: 1,224.

Intel: Max 17,813, 16 Threads: 14,446, 8 Threads: 8,780, 4 Threads: 4,988, 2 Threads: 2,546, Single Thread: 1,281.
AMD: Max 15,209, 16 Threads: 10,584, 8 Threads: 8,298, 4 Threads: 4,730, 2 Threads: 2,422, Single Thread: 1,229.

Intel: Max 17,692, 16 Threads: 14,567, 8 Threads: 9,181, 4 Threads: 5,032, 2 Threads: 2,555, Single Thread: 1,283.
AMD: Max 14,884, 16 Threads: 10,530, 8 Threads: 8,280, 4 Threads: 4,741, 2 Threads: 2,427, Single Thread: 1,223.

Unlike the Pre-Compiled Runtimes Tool, there's not even a GLIMMER of hope for AMD here.

Tut tut, and here I thought Intel used to be naturally better at 7-Zip based compression tests, compared to AMD - which ought to have given AMD a boost with 3DMark CPU testing here.

I wouldn't be surprised if Intel's optimized their CPU though. The invariant results in this synthetic benchmark do beg for an explanation. Also funny how 8 and 4 threads keep improving.

Either that, or AMD's 128 MB "3D" or whatever cache isn't half what it's hyped to be, not nearly?

What do you folks make of this situation?
 
Some quick one-off GPU tests:

Speed Way - Intel: 6,515, AMD: 6,574
Steel Nomad - Intel: 6,118, AMD: 6,408
Port Royal - Intel: 16,133, AMD: 16,800
Time Spy - Intel: 22,492 , AMD: system unresponsive! second run after forced cold reboot: 21,329
3DMark 11 - Intel: 52,885, AMD: 53,116
3DMark Vantage: Intel: 132,742, AMD: 123,389
3DMark06: Intel: file system error! second run after forced cold reboot: 62,141, AMD: 37,869

Oh my, again, AMD strikes back - BIG TIME - good news for gamers, I 'spose?

Funny how the systems tortured me again with mandatory chkdsks on my five-ish partitions after the cold boots, when I was intent on doing just a "quick pass".

Also funny how Intel seems to be, again, super optimized for the most commonly available 3D synthetic tests ;)

I'd also have to comment how super crazy low the AMD score is on 3DMark06 - I was watching the frame rates during run as is my favorite GPU test of all; and it was doing half to a third of the Intel, wow what gives?

And just had to give the Pre-Compiled Runtimes Tool one last go while I was at it before calling it - Intel: 11:46, AMD: 12:10.
 
mimarsina158b02db said:
Some quick one-off GPU tests:

Speed Way - Intel: 6,515, AMD: 6,574
Steel Nomad - Intel: 6,118, AMD: 6,408
Port Royal - Intel: 16,133, AMD: 16,800
Time Spy - Intel: 22,492 , AMD: system unresponsive! second run after forced cold reboot: 21,329
3DMark 11 - Intel: 52,885, AMD: 53,116
3DMark Vantage: Intel: 132,742, AMD: 123,389
3DMark06: Intel: file system error! second run after forced cold reboot: 62,141, AMD: 37,869

Oh my, again, AMD strikes back - BIG TIME - good news for gamers, I 'spose?

Funny how the systems tortured me again with mandatory chkdsks on my five-ish partitions after the cold boots, when I was intent on doing just a "quick pass".

Also funny how Intel seems to be, again, super optimized for the most commonly available 3D synthetic tests ;)

I'd also have to comment how super crazy low the AMD score is on 3DMark06 - I was watching the frame rates during run as is my favorite GPU test of all; and it was doing half to a third of the Intel, wow what gives?

And just had to give the Pre-Compiled Runtimes Tool one last go while I was at it before calling it - Intel: 11:46, AMD: 12:10.
Click to expand...
obviously some compatibility issue - I had to install some old packages that were brought up during 3DMark06 installation to make sure it would run smoothly.

Some quick testing:
screenshot-2025-05-16-10-03-58.png


screenshot-2025-05-16-02-27-58.png
 
Nah, these images are already fully set up with all required dependencies, etc.
Sometimes that error happens in Windows, where any app requiring elevation fails to launch with a file system error.
Rebooting takes care of it (although it seems some driver or other MSI installed is causing the image to hang on pretty much every other reboot request).

I could say, the stability of the MSI platform does leave one wanting here; but let's just say that could be my own image for now.
 
So I found a local OEM which sells an 14900HX paired with an RTX 5900 - interesting combination, right?

Sadly their build is rather sub-par, and I'm pretty sure the thermals inside the 16" device are horrid. It's basically a Quanta rebrand, of course.

96 GB RAM (same in the AMD) runs only at 5200 MHz (I figure that's still not too big a deal potentially, as the latency goes down in this scenario).

My favorite benchmark completed at 12:43 seconds. According to Task Manager, CPU never even approached 5.8 GHz, tops something below 5 GHz.

Not a fair comparison due to thermals I'm sure, but it was worth a shot.

Edit: Second attempt went at 11:43. Third (next morning) at 10:59. That's an incredible upward trajectory and amazing for a device with thermals like this.

Probably should uninstall leftover drivers and software tools from MSI and try again, as I saw their software flash on and off in the background during runs.
 
Last edited:
mimarsina158b02db said:
MSI Raider A18 HX A9WJG-091TR looks great on paper, but I've run into two serious roadblocks:

1) RAM.
a) My Mushkin 96 GB RAM (2x48 GB kit) at 5600 MHz doesn't work with this device at all. The same RAM works fine on the Norse edition of the MSI Titan 18 at 5600MHz.
b) I took the high speed RAM from the Norse Titan and plugged it into the Raider. It worked, but only at 3200 MHz (half of the 6400 MHz speed it gets you on the Norse Titan), instead of the expected 5600 MHz.

2) SSD.
a) My 8 TB Gen 4 NVMe SSDs did NOT work on this device at all. They were either not detected, or one of them was detected as a 0 TB (zero) drive. These are Oyen Digital brand.
b) My 8 TB Gen 3 NVMe SSDs did NOT BOTH work either. Only one was detected, and the other slot was reported as missing. These are Sabrent brand.
c) I was able to verify that both slots work by plugging in two 2 TB Samsung SSDs. Both were detected successfully.
d) Please note that the SSDs in 2a and 2b above work fine on all laptops I've tried them before (including the Norse Titan!).

Seeing as the Norse Titan has no issues whatsoever with hardware that chokes the Raider, do we have any BIOS updates available for the Raider to address these issues?

Specifically, it's pretty crazy that an actually faster CPU device (the Raider's 9955HX3D defeats the Norse Titan's 285HX CPU, at least when both are running with 5600 MHz RAM) cannot handle SSD and RAM upgrades that were purchased from 2023 or earlier.

Please advise, as I will be returning the device if these issues cannot be promptly resolved.
Click to expand...

Recently bought
mimarsina158b02db said:
MSI Raider A18 HX A9WJG-091TR looks great on paper, but I've run into two serious roadblocks:

1) RAM.
a) My Mushkin 96 GB RAM (2x48 GB kit) at 5600 MHz doesn't work with this device at all. The same RAM works fine on the Norse edition of the MSI Titan 18 at 5600MHz.
b) I took the high speed RAM from the Norse Titan and plugged it into the Raider. It worked, but only at 3200 MHz (half of the 6400 MHz speed it gets you on the Norse Titan), instead of the expected 5600 MHz.

2) SSD.
a) My 8 TB Gen 4 NVMe SSDs did NOT work on this device at all. They were either not detected, or one of them was detected as a 0 TB (zero) drive. These are Oyen Digital brand.
b) My 8 TB Gen 3 NVMe SSDs did NOT BOTH work either. Only one was detected, and the other slot was reported as missing. These are Sabrent brand.
c) I was able to verify that both slots work by plugging in two 2 TB Samsung SSDs. Both were detected successfully.
d) Please note that the SSDs in 2a and 2b above work fine on all laptops I've tried them before (including the Norse Titan!).

Seeing as the Norse Titan has no issues whatsoever with hardware that chokes the Raider, do we have any BIOS updates available for the Raider to address these issues?

Specifically, it's pretty crazy that an actually faster CPU device (the Raider's 9955HX3D defeats the Norse Titan's 285HX CPU, at least when both are running with 5600 MHz RAM) cannot handle SSD and RAM upgrades that were purchased from 2023 or earlier.

Please advise, as I will be returning the device if these issues cannot be promptly resolved.
Click to expand...
recently bought the msi raider a18 hx a9wjg AMD CPU. purchased the Crucial CT64G56C46S5 DDR5 RAM 64GB 5600MHz. Laptop won’t boot with it. I don’t know if I should wait for a bios update or return to ram
 
abderey15a002e3 said:
Recently bought

recently bought the msi raider a18 hx a9wjg AMD CPU. purchased the Crucial CT64G56C46S5 DDR5 RAM 64GB 5600MHz. Laptop won’t boot with it. I don’t know if I should wait for a bios update or return to ram
Click to expand...
This laptop is particularly finicky with its components.
However I am using a Crucial/Micron component with it successfully myself.
The part number seems to be CT2K48G56C46S5, however this is the 2x48 GB kit, so 96 GB total.
Overall I am finding it shocking how PC components just don't appear to be compatible any longer - what gives?
 
abderey15a002e3 said:
Recently bought

recently bought the msi raider a18 hx a9wjg AMD CPU. purchased the Crucial CT64G56C46S5 DDR5 RAM 64GB 5600MHz. Laptop won’t boot with it. I don’t know if I should wait for a bios update or return to ram
Click to expand...

Return and go for 2x48GB, AMD list this CPU as max 96GB, usually implies that's shared across both memory channels so 48GB per slot.
 
electrostingz said:
Return and go for 2x48GB, AMD list this CPU as max 96GB, usually implies that's shared across both memory channels so 48GB per slot.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply. hum I have seen this Crucial CT64G56C46S5 DDR5 RAM 64GB 5600MHz work on Ryzen 9 7945HX even though its maxed is 64GB dual.
I guessed that it could be because this RAM is new and the Raider would need a bios update to support.
 
mimarsina158b02db said:
This laptop is particularly finicky with its components.
However I am using a Crucial/Micron component with it successfully myself.
The part number seems to be CT2K48G56C46S5, however this is the 2x48 GB kit, so 96 GB total.
Overall I am finding it shocking how PC components just don't appear to be compatible any longer - what gives?
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply. why would this Crucial CT64G56C46S5 DDR5 RAM 64GB 5600MHz work on Ryzen 9 7945HX but doesn't on amd 9955hx3d
 
Sadly there seem to be lots of issues with the 9955HX3D on the MSI Raider incarnation, random RAM and SSD incompatibility issues.
 
Runs after removing superfluous drivers from the 14900HX:

#1: 11:33
#2: 11:25
#3: 11:35

Sounds like I need to rerun tests on the MSIs, too; after driver cleanups.

But time to return the 14900HX for sure - I had had such high hopes for it!

Before I plug-in the drives to the 9955HX3D, I plan to run the full test suites on the 7945HX3D first.
 
abderey15a002e3 said:
Thanks for your reply. why would this Crucial CT64G56C46S5 DDR5 RAM 64GB 5600MHz work on Ryzen 9 7945HX but doesn't on amd 9955hx3d
Click to expand...

Couple of factors, obvious and easiest one being maybe your are unlucky and the module you have is DOA / faulty.
And hopefully you did try just that 1x64GB on it's own?

More complex matters.
Crucial don't always follow the same spec for their memory modules and use whatever configuration they can at the time to source the product, so it's not quite a simple case of if one worked for someone else, it will work on all. Unless you know the chip density and memory spec, going 64GB single slot and dual rank and high chip density means the CPU memory controller may struggle when you go beyond manufacturer recommendations, like 48GB per slot vs 64GB in just one slot.
 
mimarsina158b02db said:
Runs after removing superfluous drivers from the 14900HX:

#1: 11:33
#2: 11:25
#3: 11:35

Sounds like I need to rerun tests on the MSIs, too; after driver cleanups.

But time to return the 14900HX for sure - I had had such high hopes for it!

Before I plug-in the drives to the 9955HX3D, I plan to run the full test suites on the 7945HX3D first.
Click to expand...

How hot was it and what was the sustained frequency at the start of the test and towards the end when it was down to 2 active threads?
 
electrostingz said:
How hot was it and what was the sustained frequency at the start of the test and towards the end when it was down to 2 active threads?
Click to expand...
Not really hot to the touch, but I never saw any frequencies at or above 5 GHz at any time throughout the testing process.

Also ran a 3DMark CPU test but didn't bother the copy down the results here, as they're substantially worse than everything else on this thread.
 
Back
Top